FYI, an (I guess?) alternative viewpoint. I've no current position myself on this fwiw but no harm to be aware.
Cheers, S.
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [OTF-Talk] [New Report] The Limits to Digital Consent Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 09:23:21 -0400 From: Georgia Bullen georgia@simplysecure.org To: Communications communications@simplysecure.org, Cade cade@newdesigncongress.org
Hello!
*tldr:* New Report https://simsec.cc/digiconsent! Please retweet https://twitter.com/simplysecureorg/status/1452609241542537222?s=20.
Last year, Simply Secure and New Design Congress set out to understand the risks of ethical consent and data collection for underrepresented communities in complex data systems. We’re proud to publish and share our findings with you in https://simplysecure.org/resources/The_Limits_to_Digital_Consent_FINAL_Oct2021.pdf our report — *The Limits to Digital Consent: Understanding the risks of ethical consent and data collection for underrepresented communities. https://simsec.cc/digiconsent*
Six key findings emerged from our analysis:
1.
The consent model for tech is outdated. 2.
Local-first data storage is not inherently safer for people. 3.
Data creation, including the potential for data creation, is silencing. 4.
Everyone — not just members of underrepresented communities — is at risk. 5.
Ethical platform designers must consider themselves as the potential bad actor. 6.
People are overwhelmed by both the potential for harm and the indifference of decision-makers.
We see how data accumulation has great power over a person’s agency, their relationships, and the communities within which they operate -- and the associated harms reach almost every human being. Practitioners must therefore examine the systemic shortcomings of digital consent and commit to an ongoing iteration of consent and data governance within platforms. Platform designers and policymakers can no longer assume that collection is safe -- and they must work together to design systems accordingly.
We’d appreciate your help in promoting the report and you can read and download the report here https://simsec.cc/digiconsent, and find the social media promo toolkit here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oQcFPanBcyZiHidgpr_eqNXzIqAypf0uR4c5ltrVB2Y/edit .
*If you can take a moment to retweet, here's our launch tweet: https://twitter.com/simplysecureorg/status/1452609241542537222?s=20 https://twitter.com/simplysecureorg/status/1452609241542537222?s=20*
More sample tweets are available in the social media toolkit https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oQcFPanBcyZiHidgpr_eqNXzIqAypf0uR4c5ltrVB2Y/edit !
Thank you!
Georgia
Georgia Bullen* (**she/her/they https://pronoun.is/she)*, @georgiamoon http://twitter.com/georgiamoon Executive Director, Simply Secure
https://simplysecure.org *Join our community on slack https://simsec.cc/slack. Follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/simplysecureorg, Instagram http://instagram.com/simplysecure, Facebook http://facebook.com/simplysecureorg/, LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/company/simplysecureorg/, Medium https://medium.com/simply-secure/* *Simply Secure is a 501c3 nonprofit, please consider supporting our work. https://simplysecure.org/support-us/*
On Mon, 2021-10-25 at 20:56 +0100, Stephen Farrell wrote:
FYI, an (I guess?) alternative viewpoint. I've no current position myself on this fwiw but no harm to be aware.
page 2: "Current thinking around digital consent".
They mean cookie banners. And they claim cookie banners don't work. Sorry, this is captain obvious on his once around the world ticket. And luckily, we now have a study that proves that captain obvious was obviously right.
Apart from that, they think "consumer protection" and mix up the attacking model of a Chinese dissident vs some facebook family group. If you put them in the same bucket, what could possibly go wrong?
For the real thing, see https://www.heinz.cmu.edu/~acquisti/papers/AcquistiGrossklags-IEEESP-2005.pd...
--Rigo
Hiya,
On 25/10/2021 21:29, Rigo Wenning wrote:
Apart from that, they think "consumer protection" and mix up the attacking model of a Chinese dissident vs some facebook family group. If you put them in the same bucket, what could possibly go wrong?
So the point, for me, is that consideration ought be given to scenarios where e.g. local government may be an adversary rather than a locally accountable town-hall who want to do better. And the same is true for any of the actors - they may be good or bad, so designs need to consider how to handle the case when they turn out to be bad actors.
If technology for handling consent is developed that's useful, it'd be deployed in all scenarios. I'm not saying that one can fully solve for all those, but they deserve proper consideration.
Cheers, S.
On Mon, 2021-10-25 at 22:19 +0100, Stephen Farrell wrote:
If technology for handling consent is developed that's useful, it'd be deployed in all scenarios. I'm not saying that one can fully solve for all those, but they deserve proper consideration.
Absolutely. Imagine in the CoCoDAT scenario, it is VERY easy to establish a "panic button" that zips data, encrypts with a key only known to the user and erases the rest. You normally see it coming. And if you're already in Hongkong, using something like CoCoDAT may only work for meal choices and even there... :(
But if you are in a democratic society and you want to kill CookieBanners and enable location based services where they make sense, CoCoDAT is a good tool for you.
eu-consenting_consortium@alice.wu.ac.at
-
Rigo Wenning -
Stephen Farrell